Folkestone Express
22-12-1900
Wednesday, December 19th: Before Alderman Banks,
Lieut. Col. Hamilton, and J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, and G.I.
Swoffer Esqs.
Patrick McBrine pleaded Not Guilty to a charge of
drunkenness.
P.C. Sales said he was in plain clothes just under
Darlington Arch about 10.56 p.m. on the 8th inst. He saw the
defendant walking towards Broadmead Road and behaving indecently. He refused to
give witness his name and address, and in consequence witness followed him to
the Agnes public house, where Sergt. Dunster was on duty. Witness stated the
facts to him, and Sergt. Dunster asked the defendant for his name and address,
but he persistently refused until he was told he would be taken to the police
station and there detained.
Sergt. Dunster corroborated, and added there was no doubt as
to his drunkenness.
Supt. Reeve reported that there were two previous
convictions against him, both for similar offences.
The Bench inflicted a fine of 10s. and 10s. costs, levied by
distress, or 14 days`.
Folkestone Herald
24-8-1901
Annual Licensing Meeting
Wednesday, August 21st: Before Messrs. J. Hoad,
C.J. Pursey, W. Wiightwick, W.G. Herbert, and Lieut. Colonel Hamilton.
The Agnes Inn
Theodore W. Player, of the Agnes Inn, 15, Broadmead Road,
applied for a spirit and wine off licence.
Mr. Haines, for the Licensed Victuallers` Association, and
Mr. Bradley, for the Temperance Council, opposed.
Mr. Hall supported, and said the application was to
authorise him to sell by retail spirits and wine on a grocers` licence.
Mr. Player said he was a grocer and general dealer in
Broadmead Road. Since he had been there – seven years – the district had developed
greatly, and his customers often asked for spirits and wine.
The Chief Constable said everything was satisfactory, and
the licence was granted.
Southeastern Gazette 27-8-1901
Brewster Sessions
The annual
Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday, before J. Hoad, Esq., and other
Magistrates.
Theodore William
Player, a grocer at No. 15, Broadmead Road, made a successful application for a
spirits and wine (off) licence to sell in his shop. Mr. Hall represented the
applicant.
Folkestone Herald
17-12-1904
County Court
Tuesday, December 12th: Before Sir William Lucius
Selfe.
Mr. J.H. Rook, on behalf of Frank Spencer, wine merchant, of
Broadmead Road, made an application for an interim injunction to restrain Mr.
Theodore William Player, and the Misses Nellie Player and Millicent Player, his
daughters, from inciting small boys to cause annoyance to plaintiff.
In opening the case, Mr. Rook explained that the summons had
been issued on Monday against the defendants. Plaintiff was a wine merchant,
and had carried on business with his father at Maidstone for fifty years. He
had recently opened a branch establishment at Broadmead Road, and opposite to
his premises Mr. Player occupied a shop, in the management of which he was
assisted by his two daughters, who were the co-defendants in the action. The
opening of that branch establishment had very much annoyed the Player family,
who had taken a course which was certainly most extraordinary and
reprehensible. Not having the courage themselves to attack Mr. Spencer or the
premises, they had incited children to pull his bills down, and to bang
crackers on the doorstep of the shop. Eight or nine bills had been destroyed,
while customers and the manager had been startled and annoyed by the banging of
crackers, which were set off on the doorstep, and thrown into the premises. The
boys who had done that were in Court, and Mr. Spencer was very desirous not to
proceed against them under the Towns and Police Clauses Act. Because he
considered that the persons responsible were really Mr. Player and his daughters.
They had incited the children to mischief, and the children were only too glad
to come forward and carry it out. No doubt the object was to annoy, and place
obstacles in the way of Mr. Spencer. Under these circumstances, and if those
facts were proved, he should have a strong claim to the order for which he was
asking. He was quite prepared to treat that application as the trial of the
action.
His Honour: What is the value of the premises?
Mr. Rook: About £30 or £40 a year.
His Honour (to defendant): What have you to say?
Defendant: I deny it.
His Honour: I will hear the evidence.
Edward Dumont, the manager of Mr. Spencer`s establishment,
said that his employer carried on business as a wine merchant in Broadmead
Road. The premises were situated directly opposite to those of Mr. Player. On
the 19th November the shop was opened, and bills were exhibited
outside the premises containing extracts from Mr. Spencer`s wine list. The
bills were put up on the afternoon of Monday, the 5th December, and
about half past six the same evening they were torn down. At first they could
not find out who had pulled them down, but on Wednesday some bills of a smaller
kind were affixed to the premises, and they, too, were spoiled and torn off. On
Saturday, December 3rd, boys kept continually coming to the shop
door and letting off crackers. Witness saw Mr. Player, Mrs. Player, and their
two daughters enjoying the fun. The last occasion on which he heard “shooting”
was on Saturday.
Defendant asserted that he was subject to the same annoyance
by boys letting off caps.
Witness: But you have supplied the boys with the caps.
Defendant: I have not.
Reginald Smallfield, aged 12, of No. 65, Broadmead Road,
said that on Wednesday of last week he was in Broadmead Road, with a boy named
Chadwick, and he went into Mr. Player`s shop. He went to get something for his
mother, and after that they went to Mr. Spencer`s and pulled the bills down.
Mr. Rook: Why did you pull the bills down? – Nellie Player
told me to.
What happened when you tore them down? – A lady opened the
window, and we ran away, but Mr. Spencer caught me, and took me back to his
house.
Then did you tell him what had happened? – Yes.
Did you know of any bills being pulled down before that
afternoon? – I knew that Fred Player had been pulling them off.
How did you know that? – I saw him.
On being told to tell His Honour what he knew, the witness
said that on Saturday week the Players gave him a penny to get a cracker, and
crack it on Mr. Spencer`s wall. They spoke to a boy named Eustace Adams, and
told him to throw one in the door, and then they would give him another one.
They told Fred Player o go and crack a cracker on the wall. He had several at
the time. On Friday of last week he was in Mr. Player`s shop, and Nellie and
Millie Player were in there. They then called him a coward for telling of
anybody else.
Horace Chadwick, aged 12, stated that he was at Mr. Player`s
shop on Saturday week. Nellie Player told him to go and crack crackers on Mr.
Dumont`s shop. She told Eustace Adams and Smallfield to do the same thing. On
Wednesday of last week he was in teh shop again, when Nellie and Millie Player
told him to go and pull the bills down at the side of the shop. Witness did so,
and then ran away. The following Friday he was in the shop, and both of the
female defendants asked him not to “tell on anybody”, and Mrs. Player added
that they would be cowards if they did. They also said that they would club
together and pay a fine if they were fined for what they did.
His Honour: Supposing you went to prison, what then? Would
they club together and go to prison? (Laughter)
Walter Crouch, aged 11, of Tontine Street, said that he was
in Mr. Player`s shop in Broadmead Road the previous Wednesday, when Nellie
Player asked him to bang some crackers in front of Mr. Spencer`s shop. She also
told him to throw mud on the bills, and she would let him wash his hands
afterwards. He did so, and spoilt one of the bills, which contained the prices
of wines and spirits which were sold.
Cross-examined by Mr. Player: He went in the shop afterwards
and washed his hands.
Theodore William Player denied having anything to do with
the case, or that he had ever spoken to the boys.
His Honour: What about the family?
Witness: As far as I know they did not do anything. The
first I heard of it was when I received a letter from Mr. Rook in which he said
“it appeared I had incited children to cause an annoyance, and destroy bills on
the wall”. Spencer is a bit spiteful because I have the means of making him
carry out the Licensing Act as he should do.
Cross-examined by Mr. Rook: He did not know that there had
been any annoyance. There had been as many bangers on his step as on Mr.
Dumont`s. He had stood outside and looked on, but he had not laughed at it, nor
did he ask any of them to do it again.
His Honour: Now let us hear the ladies.
Nellie Player was the next witness. She asserted that she
had seen a lot of boys outside Mr. Spencer`s shop, and added, I said “What fun
it would be to pull hi bills off”, but I didn`t tell them to do it. (Laughter)
I didn`t say it to anyone in particular. (Laughter)
His Honour: Did you tell them to throw crackers in his door?
Witness: I told them not to go on his door, but to keep off
the path, for then he could not stop them.
His Honour: Did you suggest to Crouch that he should throw
mud at the things?
Witness: No.
His Honour: Did you let him in to wash his hands after he
threw the mud?
Witness: Yes.
Millicent Player emphatically denied that she knew anything
of the matter or that she had heard her sister tell the boys to do anything.
Mr. Player was again called forward, and His Honour asked
him if he would undertake that Mr. Spencer would not be annoyed by his family
any more.
Mr. Player: Certainly.
His Honour: We cannot have Nellie Player encouraging boys in
this way, and I don`t want to have to send her to prison. (Laughter) When
lovely women stoop to folly it is a pity. (Laughter) Do you agree to this being
a trial of the action?
Mr. Player: What about the costs?
His Honour: You will have to pay them.
Mr. Player: But I don`t agree to that.
His Honour: If you don`t agree to it, it doesn`t matter a
bit. The order will still be made. If you wish to have the case fought again,
you can have it tried again. I shall have to grant an injunction to last until
the next Court. If you give an undertaking that the annoyance shall cease, I
shall dispose of the case now.
Mr. Player: But I was not aware of this. I will give the
undertaking.
His Honour: Will you agree to this being treated as the
trial of the action?
Mr. Player: I cannot say any more than I have said. I am
innocent of all of this.
His Honour: Very well (writing down his decision) “Defendant
agreeing to take this application as the hearing of the action, and undertaking
for himself and family not to interfere with or annoy the plaintiff in the
conduct of his business, no order except that the plaintiff will pay the costs
of this application within fourteen days will be made.” The costs would be
subject to a taxation on the £20 scale.
His Honour, calling Miss Nellie Player forward, said: Miss
Nellie Player, you must not talk to these boys in his way, and suggest things
to them. “Don`t nail his ears to the pump” for you know that means he is likely
to go and do it. Do not encourage these boys to interfere with Mr. Spencer
again. In the meantime I will grant no injunction, so that you will be able to
spend Christmas in the bosom of your family. (Laughter)
Folkestone Express
24-12-1904
Saturday, December 17th: Before W.G. Herbert
Esq., Alderman Salter, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and J. Stainer Esq.
Francis Stone Spencer, of 2, Broadmead Road, was summoned
for selling a bottle of gin contrary to law on December 7th, and
Edward Dumont was summoned for aiding and abetting him. Mr. Rook, who appeared
for the defendants, pleaded Not Guilty.
Edward Pinnex, an officer of the Inland Revenue, said a
retail wine and spirit licence had been granted to Mr. Spencer for his premises
at 2, Broadmead Road.
Det. Sergt. Burniston said on December 7th he saw
a man enter the premises, 2, Broadmead Road, of which the defendant is the
occupier. They were known as the Broadmead Wine And Spirit Stores. After the
man had left the shop, he went to the side entrance of the premises, used as a
wine and spirit store and barber`s shop. Witness followed, and saw the man
enter a door on the right hand side of the passage. Witness also went through
the door, which led into the back portion, which was fitted up as a gentlemen`s
first class hairdressing slaoon. Smith, the man who witness followed, was being
shaved by the defendant Dumont. The man eventually left the premises. The shop
was about 25ft. long and 14ft. wide, and was divided by a wooden partition
seven feet high, leaving an open space from the top of the partition to the
ceiling of about five feet. At one end of the partition there was an opening of
about two and a half feet wide, and anyone could go into the fore portion of
the shop which was used as the wine and spirit department. He asked Dumont if
he held a licence for the sale of wines and spirits, and he replied “No, Mr.
Spencer holds the licence. I rent the shop, but sub-let it to Mr. Spencer. I
manage his business for him during his absence. I do not receive any salary”.
Witness then told him he was committing an offence against the licensing law,
and Dumont then said “I manage the business for Mr. Spencer, who journeys to
Maidstone every day, and while he is away I look after the wine and spirit
department”. Witness told him he should report the matter to the Chief
Constable. About half past four, witness was again in Broadmead Road. When he
saw a man named Stanley enter the front portion of the shop. He also saw Dumont
come through the opening from the barber`s shop into the wine and spirit
department. After a minute or so he handed Stanley something wrapped in paper.
When Stanley got outside, witness examined the paper and found it to contain a
bottle of Hollands gin. He accompanied witness back into the shop, and Dumont
said the man had bought the gin and paid 2s. 9d. for it. He also said he had
already told witness the business had nothing to do with him. Later in the
evening he saw Mr. Spencer, who told him Dumont had nothing to do with the
business except that he managed it in his absence, and that he (Spencer) would
take the whole responsibility. Over the shop front was painted “The Broadmead
Wine And Spirits”. Fixed to one side of the house was a barber`s pole. There
was also a hanging sign bearing the word “Shaving”. Another hanging sign bore
the words “Wines and Spirits”. On the other side of the shop leading towards
the Central Station was a hanging sign with the words “Hairdressing and
Shaving”, and under it another hanging sign on which were the words “Wines and
Spirits”. When he was in the shop he noticed a mirror attached to the side of
the opening in the position, and in it he could see a man sitting in a chair
with his face lathered.
Cross-examined, he said he did not know that heinous offence
was reported to the police by a gentleman named Player. The whole substance of
the case depended upon the communication between the wine shop and the
hairdressing saloon.
Chief Constable Reeve said a fortnight previous to the
report being received, the defendant Dumont called at the Police Office and
asked if he would be allowed to have a tobacconist business, as Mr. Spencer, of
Maidstone, had obtained a licence to sell spirits and wines there. Witness told
him under that licence no other business could be carried on on the premises.
In consequence of what he heard he instructed Burniston to make enquiries. On
the evening of December 7th, the defendant Spencer called at the
Police Office and said it was his business. Witness told him that a report had
been submitted to him stating that two businesses had been carried on on the
premises. He also told him that he had told Dumont that it would be illegal to
do so. Mr. Spicer said he would see that the partition was closed up.
Cross-examined, he said he had given no warning to Mr.
Spencer previous to the day of the offence. The complaints were not only
received from Mr. Player, but from other people as well.
Mr. Rook said after the evidence he felt bound to advise his
clients that a technical offence had been committed. He, however, desired to
point how Mr. Player was misled by the licence, which stated that no other
trade could be conducted on the same premises. There was no trade, but a
business was carried on. Nothing was sold in the hairdressing saloon. Since the
complaint had been made the premises had been completely separated, and it was
impossible to go from the wine merchant`s into the hairdressing saloon without
going out of the shop by the front entrance. These proceedings would never have
been heard of had it not been for the jealousy of Mr. Player opposite, who had
so much annoyed Mr. Spencer in the conduct of his business that he had been
restrained by the Court. He asked the Bench to consider it a purely technical
offence, and impose a nominal fine.
The chairman said the Magistrates could not consider it a
purely technical offence. The defendants were liable to a fine of £50, but they
would be fined £5 and 10s. costs each.
Southeastern Gazette
31-12-1904
Local News
At Folkestone
Police Court on December 24th Frank Stone Spencer, wine and spirit merchant,
was summoned for selling a bottle of gin in contravention of the terms of his
licence, and Edward Dumont was summoned for aiding and abetting. The case
excited a good deal of interest on account of recent proceedings in the County
Court in which Mr. Spencer was the applicant. Mr. H. Rook appeared for the defendants,
and formally pleaded not guilty
.
Detective-Sergeant
Burniston deposed as follows: At 11 a.m. on Thursday, the 7th inst, I saw a man
named Smith enter the shop at No. 2, Broadmead Road. The defendant Dumont
occupies the premises as a shop and dwelling-house. A moment later the man left
the shop and went to a private entrance at the side of the premises. I followed
the man in by the private entrance, and saw a door on the right hand side of a
passage, which took me into the back portion of the premises, a first-class
hairdressing saloon. Smith was being shaved by Dumont, whom he paid and left
the premises. The shop is about 25ft. long and 11ft, wide, and there is a
wooden partition about 7ft. high between the saloon and the wine shop, which
leaves an open space about 5ft. from the ceiling. At one end of the partition
there is a space about 2½ ft . wide, and it can be used as an entrance to the
hairdressing saloon from the fore part of the shop (the wine and spirit
department). I said to Dumont: “Do you hold a licence for the sale of wines and
spirits here?” He replied: “No, but Mr. Spencer holds the licence. I rent the
premises from Mr. Castle, and sub-let the shop to Mr. Spencer. I manage the
business for him in his absence, but do not receive any salary.’’ I told him
that he was committing a breach of the Licensing Laws. He then said “I manage
the business for Mr. Spencer. He journeys to Maidstone every day, and while he
is away I look after the wine and spirit department.” I told him that I should
report the matter to the Chief Constable. Witness went on to prove that at 4.3O
on the same day a man named Standing was served by Dumont with a bottle of
Hollands gin. He again interviewed Dumont, who said “I have already told you
that the business has nothing to do with me.” Later in the evening, continued
witness, I saw Mr. Spencer, who told me that Dumont had nothing to do with the
business, but managed it during his (Mr. Spencer’s) absence, He would take the
whole responsibility. Over the shop front is painted the, words “The Broadmead
Wines and Spirits.” There is a fixture at theside of the house, and a barber’s
pole and hanging sign, with the word “Shaving” thereon. There is a hanging sign
below, with the words “Wines and Spirits.”
Mr. Rook: Did you
know of any objection which had been made as to the conduct of the business?
Witness: No. I
received instructions from the Chief Constable.
Mr. Rook: Do you
know that, the matter had been reported by a gentleman named Player?
Witness: The
reports were not made to me.
Chief Constable
Harry Reeve said: About 11 days previous to this report being received the
defendant Dumont called upon me at the Police Office and asked me if he would
be allowed to carry on the business of a tobacconist at No. 2, Broadmead Road,
as Mr. Spencer, of Maidstone, had obtained a licence to sell wines and spirits
there. I told him that under that licence no other business could be carried on
on the premises. In consequence of what came to my knowledge I instructed Detective-Sergeant
Burniston to keep observation upon the premises. On Thursday, the 7th, in the
evening, Mr. Spencer called upon me and said “I understand that one of your men
has visited my premises.” I told him that a report had been submitted to me
concerning two businesses being carried on upon the same premises. I said “I
have already told Mr. Dumont that it would be illegal, while there was any
connection between the wine and spirit, department and the saloon”. Mr. Spencer
said “That should have been remedied, and will be now.” I told him that it was
quite illegal and he said “I’ll see that the partition is carried across.”
Mr. Rook: I
suppose there is no objection in saying that the report came from Mr. Player?
Witness: Not Mr.
Player alone. I have had others.
Mr Rook,
addressing the Bench, said that in the face of the evidence he must advise his
clients to plead guilty to a technical offence. Detective Sergt. Burniston had
agreed with him that the offence was only a technical one. His clients had been
somewhat misled by the wording of the revenue licence itself. On the licence it
said that no trade should be carried on upon the premises except that for which
the licence was granted. Dumont did not sell anything or expose anything for
sale in the wine arid spirit shop. He did not carry on a trade, but a business,
and the word business was not mentioned upon the licence. However, the Act did
state “trade or business." The action was a simple one, purely technical,
and would never have been taken had it not been for Mr. Player, who traded
opposite the defendant’s premises. It. was common knowledge that quite recently
Mr. Flayer had been restrained from annoying the defendant. Having pleaded
guilty, he trusted that the Bench would regard the offence in its real light,
viz., a purely technical one.
In announcing the
decision of the Bench, the Chairman said: We find the case proved, and cannot
regard it wholly as a technical offence. Both defendants are liable to a fine
of £50, but the Bench have decided to reduce that to a tenth part. The fine
will be £5, and 10s. costs in each case.
Folkestone
Herald 17-10-1908
Local News
We regret to record the death of Mr. Theodore William
Player, which sad event occurred on the 9th inst., in London. The
deceased, who was the proprietor of the Agnes, Broadmead Road, had resided in
the borough for about twenty years. He leaves a widow and several children. Mr.
Player was respected by a large circle of friends. The internment took place at
the cemetery, Mill Hill, London, on Monday.
Folkestone
Daily News 2-12-1908
Wednesday, December 2nd: Before Messrs.
Ward, Herbert, Fynmore, Swoffer, Linton, and Boyd.
An application was also made for the transfer of the
off-licence of the Agnes, Broadmead Road.
The application was granted.
Folkestone
Express 5-12-1908
Wednesday, December 2nd: Before Mr. E.T.
Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, and Messrs. J. Stainer, R.J. Linton,
G. Boyd and W.G. Herbert.
The off beer and wine licence of the Agnes, Broadmead
Road, was transferred from the late Mr. Player to his widow.
Folkestone
Herald 5-12-1908
Wednesday, December 2nd: Before Mr. E.T.
Ward, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, J. Stainer and
G. Boyd.
Mrs. Player, widow of the late Mr. Player, was granted
the transfer of the off licence of the Agnes Inn in
Folkestone
Express 14-4-1917
Local News
The following licence was transferred on Wednesday at
the Police Court: the Agnes off licence, Broadmead Road, from Mr. H.J. Bowen,
who has joined up, to his wife.
The following licence
was transferred at the Police Court on Wednesday: The Agnes Inn, Broadmead
Road, from Mrs. Bowen to Mr. H.J. Bowen, her husband, who had returned from
naval service.
On Wednesday the
Magistrates consented to the transfer of licence as follows: The Agnes,
Broadmead Road, from Mrs. Bowen to Mr. H.J. Bowen, present licensee`s husband,
he having returned from service with the R.N.A.S.
Folkestone
Express 1-3-1919
Local News
Folkestone
Herald 1-3-1919
Local News
No comments:
Post a Comment